Are extraordinary measures to control population growth justified?
There is much international debate over China's policy of limiting each household to one child. Can any such extraordinary measure to control population growth be justified in the modern world? Argument One The Pro Case Let us look beyond the methods that China is using to limit it's population as to why such a policy is even needed. Imagine a scenario where a someone engineers and distributes a very infectious painless airborne virus whose only effect sequalae is to interfere with spermatogenesis so that all sperm generated by men who are infected by it immotile. What would be the effects? A.) In order to reproduce one would need to undergo artifical insemination. Since artifical insemination involved prefertilized eggs and isn't related to the motility of sperm, it would still be a viable means to produce kids. Once the procedure becomes common, it would also become incredibly cheap. The procedure currently costs about $1000. Once demand and the quantities performed rapidly increased, the costs would drop dramatically to costs that anyone who can reasonably expect to feed, shelter, cloth, and educate a child for two decades should be able to afford. Insurance would probably cover the procedure. So any one with health insurance would be able to have children. And those who are too poor to afford insurance probably wouldn't have been able to insure, raise and educate their children anyways. And the virus would only effect one generation of people before it stops getting transmitted and dies off. B.) People would still be able to have intercourse as normal as only the potency of sperm is effected. But no one would have children unless they choose to. C.) Wars will become far rarer as resources are no longer an issue, the poor donot reproduce, and democracy thrives. D.) Poverty would die off with each generation as only those who can afford to care for and educate their children would raise them. If some can't afford the procedure, they probably can't afford to give their child a good life anyways. Wealth is relative, but poverty isn't. Poverty by definition refers the income needed for the bare essentials such as food and shelter. If the population drops and resources are no longer stretched so thinly, poverty would in all liklihood disappear. E.) Adoption rates would skyrocket. All children would be ensured a good home and a good chance at a good future because whether artifically produced or adopted, children will only go to people in stable loving homes who wanted them and can afford to care for them. F.) Resource consumption will fall with the drop off in populatiion and be better distributed among more people. Humanity would prosper. G.) All the annoying fundamentalist religious people that advocate terrorism wouldn't be able to have offspring (since artificial insemination is against their religious beliefs) and thus wouldn't be able to poison the minds of younger generations. H.) Unemployment would virtually disappear. Genocide, forced slavery, terrorism, starvation and several other problems rampant through large parts of the world and directly tied to extreme impoverishment would rapidly decline. It's human psychology demonstrated best by Maslow. Middle class and richer people are far more likely to have the bottom two needs met, and are usually more likely to have the other needs met as well. And the larger percentage of a society that is self actualized and thus genuinely interested in helping the less fortunate, the more that a society thrives. I.) Overpopulation, pollution, and finite resources will all be problems of the past. Slowly, over the course of a little over half a century, the population would drop to 1900s levels. J.) With a lower population, and lower poverty, more resources can be concentrated on ensuring that all children are well educated, well brought up, considerate and may opt a noble pursuit such as that into the field of science. K.) Unwanted pregnancy is the reason more and more people undergo abortions every year as well. L.) Science is increasingly finding the cures to more and more diseases. Some day soon, no man will ever have to die from AIDs or cancer. Infact, many of the effects of old age will be reversed and ways to stop the aging process itself will soon be discovered. People are getting to be older and older, less and less are dying from disease, and the impoverished populations of the third world are reproducing at an incredible rate. At the same time, automation and mass production is becoming more rampant than ever even in poorer parts of the world. It is likely that the majority of jobs will be in the healthcare and science industry and very little will be in the labor industry. While middle income families are practicing contraception and family planning, much of the world remains impoverished and is insisting on having many children. Impoverished people fail to use protection and are bearing 8 or 9 children in poor countries all over the world. The population is already at six billion and rapidly increasing. And until poverty itself is eliminated, an event that will probably take centuries, there is little hope that the growth rate will stabilize. If the population continues to expand without control, resources will rapidly be depleted, democracy will once again fall to tyranny, and nations will engage in wars for critical resources. And there is little hope of avioding this scenario. All the contraceptive education in the world will not be enough to stop this process, it'll merely serve as speed bumps. As long as poverty remains a reality, so will the threat that overpopulation poses to world stability. There are probably many other advantages that I've probably left off. Disclaimer: This example is a satire by the creator of this site merely meant to shed a different more interesting perspective on the issue of population controls. It is not to be taken seriously. The Con Case